All of them within India. I'm talking about one country taking over another country, usually a country that is not very close to the colony, and ruling the country without absorbing the territory of the other country entirely within itself. Not one country expanding into nearby territory of people that are culturally and racially similar.

Remember, Empire =/= colonialism.

Quote:

Even in Africa there were early empires of large native tribes - eg Greater Zimbabwe.

Again, empires =/= colonialism.

Quote:

The urge to grow and gain territory is a common phenomena not limited to Europeans. The islands of the south Pacific were all colonised by Polynesian popels simply travelling, exploring and seeking new sources of food.

I never said it was limited to Europeans, but in most cases true colonialism as described above was limited to Europeans.

Quote:

If it was true that colonialism drove small populations to grow then why didn't it happen in north America, Australia or the Pacific when European colonisers arrived?

Either because the native tribes did not really come under the control of the Europeans, or the native populations were physically massacred in part by the Europeans.

Quote:

India already had a huge population.

Which just grew more because of our medicines, etc.

Quote:

We benefitted from gaining physical resources - minerals and crops

Which we never used to any great effect. Maximise your own produce before taking other peoples land and spreading your resources thin.

Quote:

as well as having places to send our people to live and learn.

Why couldn't they do that at home in Europe, where all their ancestors had lived and learned?

Quote:

I agree that we must fight Globalism in the form of international capitalism and reclaim our culture.

Dont you understand? Colonialism was the beginning of international capitalism.

How can globalism be approached, let alone be demolished? Do we even know who the leaders of globalism are?

There are many ways. The main way, would be to as I said above rely on our own resources. We need to get to a point where everything or nearly almost everything we need, we can get from white countries. Not only that each indivudual country should work towards its own autarky in-case other white countries fail to cooperate.

All of them within India. I'm talking about one country taking over another country, usually a country that is not very close to the colony, and ruling the country without absorbing the territory of the other country entirely within itself. Not one country expanding into nearby territory of people that are culturally and racially similar.

Remember, Empire =/= colonialism.

Again, empires =/= colonialism.

I never said it was limited to Europeans, but in most cases true colonialism as described above was limited to Europeans.

Either because the native tribes did not really come under the control of the Europeans, or the native populations were physically massacred in part by the Europeans.

Which just grew more because of our medicines, etc.

Which we never used to any great effect. Maximise your own produce before taking other peoples land and spreading your resources thin.

Why couldn't they do that at home in Europe, where all their ancestors had lived and learned?

Dont you understand? Colonialism was the beginning of international capitalism.

The Inca expanded into other territories but they also made client states of tribal areas which they did not then absorb entirely themselves but from which they took tribute - does this not meet your definition of colonialism? The Roman Empire conquered Europe, same racial group but also northern Africa, different racial groups, how does that fit your criteria? The Romans also had client states (colonies) which they did not absorb entirely themselves. You are taking a very restricted definition of 'colony' and 'empire' to support a case for Europeans isolationism. All empires begin by a combination of conquest and colony forming as they eventually run into other powers of similar strength and the two form 'client states' or colonies as buffers. The Roman and Persians for example or the US and USSR if you want a more modern example.

There is no chance that Europe could have stayed isolated from africa and asia. It is natural for people to explore and expand and the white race has been the most successful, gaining the vast territories of North America and Australia. When the great voyages of discovery started they did not set out knowing what they would find, they dealt with what they came across. Ins ome places they were very successful and in others not so but to then argue that they should have never expanded in the first place is nonsensical.

We have benefitted from this european expansion - europe could not have resourced the industrial revolution without the physical resources we found elsewhere. Exploration of the world help stimulate our great scientific thinkers and led to our taking a great lead in science and technology which has benefitted our race and demonstrated its fitness on global scale.

It simply isn't true that colonialism was the start of international capitalism unless you define international capitalism simply as a money economy on a world wide scale. The early explorers, empire builders and colonists, were not primarily motivated by selfish greed, they were taking lands on behalf of their nation, their kings and their people. International Capitalism is a feature of an advanced technological society whereby individuals are reduced to 'customers', where love of the company and maximising profit for the company surpass all other concerns; where family, tribe, race are concepts to be scorned and denied in order that they never grow strong enough to fight back and create a new order based on racial identity, racial idealism and racial pride.

I see no sense in denigrating the past or in limiting the white race to its indigenous territories. We have a past to be proud of and a future to win and only strong white pride will deliver that future.